Thanks Alan for the explanation- helps those of us not engaged in the phone
conferences to understand, which is of course necessary in order to add
value.
value of component research? (not sure what you mean)
Making an argument for more research investment in this particular area.
Some foo
One final note, since my last few emails may have clouded this issue:
1) However much I may believe we are closer than it may seem -
despite the very real concerns Nigam points out below - to providing
a means whereby domain expert scientists will be able to construct
the manner of stateme
Hi Alan,
Tim and Steve (the other HyBrow guy) have discussed this in some
detail I believe. Its great to have formally structured
representations at the level of biological entities created by the
scientists themselves. However, right now (A) The ontologies and
relations for doing so might or mig
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 3/6/2007 7:33 PM
To: William Bug
Cc: Eric Neumann; Alan Ruttenberg; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Re: Notes from informal Demo F2F
Bill,
I am trying to understand your proposal. Which are you suggesting:
(1) we curate in to SWAN some existing published
Sorry to contribute to what appears to be an endless chain, here, but -
I see the relation between this OBO Phenotype Assertion Wiki page and
SWAN EXACTLY as Tim describes it below.
Also - I would not expect working neuroscientists to go through what
I did to produce what's on that page - H
Many thanks, Alan.
I think you do an excellent job capturing most of the essential
issues related to the effort depicted on that page - with two caveats:
1) I'm not asking or expecting the SWAN group to change anything
about what they are doing internally in SWAN. I'm only suggesting
th
Hi Eric,
I was the ?. I attended for about 1.5 hours of the call and then I had
to leave quietly (I didn't want to disturb the discussion) for teaching
a class. I think the suggestions are great. It's important to show the
benefits that SW can potentially bring to the healthcare and life
sci
On Mar 6, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Mark Montgomery wrote:
I agree with Olivier, particularly when considering multi-component
systems (certainly our goal).
Which brings up the questions of priorities? (1-10 each?)
Is it to demonstrate the functionality and value of languages/OWL?
informatics? un
Alan,
Thanks for that summary.
SWAN is not a software project - it is a project for a technology-
mediated social infrastructure. Those fancy words mean we are trying
to get the working scientists themselves to curate the material for
their own benefit, self-understanding & "karma points".
Here's my analysis:
I think Bill wants (1). Bill is trying to convince the SWAN team to
curate to a level deeper than you are going now, by naming and
collecting relationships between the biological entities that are
being talked about in the paper SWAN curates. The page he references
is
BIll:
(1) or (2) or none of the above is good enough for right now. I am
finding your proposal difficult to follow.
Tim
On TuesdayMar 6, 2007, at 7:43 PM, William Bug wrote:
Sorry, Tim.
Can't really go into more detail right now. I have a lot of
planning still to do on an all day meet
Sorry, Tim.
Can't really go into more detail right now. I have a lot of planning
still to do on an all day meeting I must lead tomorrow.
I lay it out considerable detail on this proposal on that page I cite
below:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/OntologyTaskForce/
OboPhenotypeSynta
Meant to add I don't mean to imply the implicated models of cellular
physiology (LTP/LTD) and of disease - or the hypotheses are not
equally important.
I just feel there will be a "missing link" between those high level,
abstracted views and the large data repositories (GENEBANK sequences,
Bill,
I am trying to understand your proposal. Which are you suggesting:
(1) we curate in to SWAN some existing published work hypothesizing
connection of, for example, MPTP/MPP+ mechanism to some forms of PD; or
(2) we build "our own" hypothesis of MPTP/MPP+ mechanism relationship
etc, not
Hi All,
Looks like a lot of substantive work was done at the F2F. Kudos to
all who participated!
I'd like to highlight one of the issues EricN mentioned.
On Mar 6, 2007, at 8:29 AM, Eric Neumann wrote:
As part of the scernario using the known aggregate of facts, add a
few *select* hypothe
Eric Neumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Notes from informal Demo F2F / "aha"
Eric Neumann wrote:
[...]
It was also apparent that we need to identify what the specific &quo
Dear All,
I've been lurking on list for a while and saw this email and wanted
to chime in briefly. I have a few other suggestions for some of your
'Other Resources' that we have at the Rat Genome Database. We have
rat genes annotated with the Mammalian Phenotype ontology, along with
a di
At one point during the informal F2F, the folks on the call (Karen Skinner,
Eric P, John Barkely, Scott Marshall, Eric N, ?) were cut off from the
conference, but we ended up having a discussion amonst ourselves, where we came
up with a few suggestions regarding the demo:
- it might be compell
Lovely!
We would indeed data rather than web pages in order to translate into
RDF/OWL and integrate into our queries.
I'll contact you off-list to talk about possibilities.
-Alan
On Mar 6, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Twigger Simon wrote:
Dear All,
I've been lurking on list for a while and saw this e
19 matches
Mail list logo
